Misleading Murder Rates: The Attempted Murders Should Count Just the Same

If you live in a large community that is plagued by gang violence, it is not unusual to pick up the morning paper and read, “2 Killed, 5 Injured in Shootings.” This was the headline in the July 6, 2009 Metro section of the Washington Post. The story recapped the city’s shooting violence over the Independence Day weekend. At year’s end, D.C. will tally the murder rate and forward the number, along with the number of other major crimes like rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crimes and auto theft, for addition to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. But do murder statistics tell the whole story? Do they accurately reflect violent crime in a community? When a criminal commits a robbery, breaks into a house or steals a car, it is what it is. Either the crime was committed or not. All other violent crimes tend to be forgotten when you compare murder rates between cities. For example, even though seven people were shot in Washington, D.C., fortunately only two died. The murder rate in the District has statistically increased by two, but five others could have been killed. To measure the true rate of violence in your community, you need to look at the number of individual shooting and stabbing incidents rather than the number of people murdered. If a city experienced 100 homicides by shootings, there may have been as many as another 100 or more incidents where people were shot at, or shot and wounded. The true number of violent crimes then doubles. Although most homicides are committed by firearms, they by no means have a monopoly on death. Stabbings, poison, drowning, strangulation, explosives, asphyxiation, narcotics and fire are other means used to commit murders. But they are far less common than by the use of firearms. It should be noted that half of all gun deaths are suicides. Fortunately, many criminal shooters often miss their target or do not hit their intended victim’s vital organs. But why should they get a pass from being charged with a capital crime just because God intervened to save the victim? When a gangbanger drives by a home and shoots at someone, his intent is not to scare or wound. It should be obvious he intends to kill his victim. At least it should be obvious that the potential of deadly consequences exists. If the potential victim is seated on his front porch and runs away as the shooter fires off rounds, why shouldn’t the criminal code make this a capital offense if a jury finds him guilty? One reason is that many jurors will hesitate to convict someone if they think the defendant may be executed by the state if he is found guilty. Others think the death penalty should only apply when another’s life is taken. In light of this, then why not make the punishment for attempted murder life in prison without the possibility of parole? When a criminal has advanced in his career from petty offenses to shooting someone, he should spend the rest of his life in prison because he has demonstrated that he is incapable of rehabilitation. Attempted murder should be considered as serious as murder itself, no matter the means used. Defense attorney arguments that the defendant “didn’t kill anyone,” or “missed his target,” shouldn’t be an excuse for what the defendant intended to do. It’s time to stop focusing on handguns as the problem when, in reality, the shooter is the problem. Many cities, like Salinas, California, are plagued with gang-related shootings and murders. Out of frustration, Mayor Dennis Donohue called on residents to “fast for peace,” in order to reduce gang violence. Somehow I don’t think losing weight is going to prevent shootings, no matter how long you reflect on it. A hard-core gang member knows the only way to prevent him from shooting a rival gangster, or innocent bystander in the process, is to put him in prison and keep him there. Let’s accommodate him in that regard.